Academic Indianismo: Social Scientific Research in American Indian Studies

Abstract

The struggle for the validity of indigenous knowledges may no longer be over the recognition that indigenous peoples have ways of viewing the world which are unique, but over proving the authenticity of, and control over, our own forms of knowledge.-Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodology American Indian Studies (AIS), or Native American studies (NAS), arose as a field in the late 1960s and 1970s as part of the "new Indian" movement and the revitalization of Indian culture and identity. By 1999 there were many colleges and universities offering programs or majors in AIS/NAS, thirteen with graduate degrees, and at least four with Ph.D. programs. 1 Although multidisciplinary in nature, and drawing from the humanities, history and the social sciences, AIS/NAS is informed by its own paradigm. Thus, the question remains: Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Is American Indian studies a legitimate discipline, with its own unique perspective and methodological concerns? Or is it solely an area of concentration within the established disciplines? I subscribe to the first view, that AIS/NAS has its own perspective or paradigm. 2 I term this "academic Indianismo." Alexander Ewen (Perepeche) has coined the term Indianismo as a counterpoint to indigenismo, a concept promoted by Lazaro Cardenas, the Mexican proponent of Indian rights. 3 Cardenas, however, despite his humanistic concerns, saw indigenismo as a means of assimilating Indians into the body politic

Indigenous Research Methodologies: Challenges and Opportunities for Broader Recognition and Acceptance

“…Questions are framed differently, priorities are ranked differently, problems are defined differently, and people participate on different terms" (Smith, 2021: p. 250). IMs enable and empower Indigenous peoples to take control over their own search for knowledge (Absolon, 2011;Talbot, 2002). Employing IMs critically engages the colonial power of the academy and begins decolonizing knowledge production (Morgensen, 2012).…”

Indigenous Wholistic Theory: A Knowledge Set for Practice

“…Indigenous scholars are calling for an ongoing critique and deconstruction of colonial motives, theories and methods (Absolon & Herbert, 1997;Duran & Duran, 1995Henderson, 2000b;LaRocque, 1991;Ross, 2005;Smith, 2000;Talbot, 2002). Critical reflections and discourse set a pathway for decolonization and for freedom to be attained without replicating or empowering colonialism and Eurocentric hegemony (Alfred, 2005).…”

Fostering horizontal knowledge co-production with Indigenous people by leveraging researchers' transdisciplinary intentions

“…Raffles (2002) reminds us that Indigenous knowledge is only local in relation to the construct of supra-local science. Viewing dominant and mainstream ways of knowing as the only legitimate knowledge, or as delocalized, is inherently colonial (wa Thiong'o 1986, Talbot 2002. Decolonizing knowledge co-production will require conscientization (Freire 1970); that is, unlearning and facilitation of critical consciousness to make room for awareness of Indigenous epistemologies and politicize what counts as knowledge (Turnhout et al 2020).…”

“…Research groups often repurpose colonial constructs that relegate Indigenous groups to culturally submissive roles, ascribe them demeaning monikers, and subjugate Indigenous worldviews (Chilisa 2017). A call to action from Indigenous studies scholars has imbued scholarship on decolonization of research (wa Thiong'o 1986, Tuhiwai-Smith 1999, Simpson 2001, Talbot 2002, Hodge 2012. This body of literature draws on critical analyses on power and inequity; it politicizes knowledge production and co-production; highlights the need for critical consciousness; and problematizes pervasive forms of colonial thinking in theoretical and methodological approaches to research.…”